les

I bought a used Canon BG-E13 in supposedly 'Mint' condition for my Canon 6D. First of all I was surprised by the price since it sold for about half of what a Used one would sell and about a third of what a new one sell ? In any case I took a chance. The seller is based in good old California, but the item took about a month to arrive. I wondered why ? Well when the Item arrived it was wrapped in that yellow paper that usually means China. Sure enough the return address read "Peking China". Well at least it got here, so I decided to try it out on my camera...

 

The thing did not fit ! It was almost like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. There was this gap between the camera and the battery grip that prevented the contacts in the camera and the contacts in the grip to come together. I tried everything but I don't remember having these problems with the grips for my 7D and 5D. I called Canon Technical service and they told me to return it because technically they could not do anything . I was thinking about having it serviced, but then I said what the heck and pushed the [RETURN ITEM] on the eBay page. I asked Canon if there were any counterfeit products floating around ? But this thing looked legit. It came in a Canon Box with Warranty card. It had all the Canon stickers it just did not fit my camera ?

Well...you took a chance.

In case you DON'T want to take another chance - here it is: B&H Photo Video Digital Cameras, Photography, Camcorders

Jack, if you have had this experience more than once already, you may consider composing your comments elsewhere and then copy/pasting them into place.

Sure. I am already considering composing my posts elsewhere. And - I will skip pasting them here.

Yes, I should have updated the thread. I got a 300WS monolight and paired it with two speedlights (when needed), and now my photography is 1,286% better. Lighting is the key to everything. I owe the revelation to the kind people here that pointed me away from the $1,000 lens and toward the $500 lights! You can see my recent work at KC Home Photography

LOL...of course lighting is the key :) Photography is "drawing with light", if we get to the bottom of it.

Congrats on a good decision.

I reported this issue quite a while back and got an acknowledgement - for some reason, nothing has happened to correct the situation. Suggest you contact your credit card company. My perception is that what is involved is inattention rather than anything deliberate. I will still report the situation again. Sorry.

 

 

Unfortunately, the latter is probably your best option at this juncture.

I do not need to contact my credit card company...My credit card has been changed some time ago.

But this is not the point. The real question is: WHY IS THE WEBSITE BEING CHANGED FOR THE WORSE ? WHO IS DRIVING THIS ? WHY THIS IS CONSIDERED NORMAL ? WHY NOTHING IS BEING DONE DESPITE NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS ? HAS PHOTO.NET BECAME JUST A CASH COW (HARD TO BELIEVE THIS...) ?

"The hyperfocal distance for 14mm/f2.5 on the full frame body is around 2.61m. From what I understand, if I focus at that distance, everything from 1.3 m in front to inf will be in focus."

Well, strictly speaking this is a physical impossibility. It maybe in sufficient focus for a human eye to skip over the differences - but only ONE distance will give you a true focus.

I haven't seen your pics. But I have seen a LOT of real estate photographs. 90% of them (particularly interiors) suffer from bad lighting.

I vote for a pair of good flashes.

"...the wedding lasts two hours..."

A two hour wedding is not a wedding: it is a drink with friends (and a quick one at that). Just saying.

This is a comedy...

The old site wasn't ideal, but it was usable.

It seems to be a disease spreading w/o control: "updates" and "improvements" of websites, hailed as something that is done for the convenience of the users.

The end result is always the same: bugs, slow-downs, missing data, mistakes etc.

But one thing seems to be common: the attempt to put the hand in the user's pockets.

GET THIS: paying is NOT a problem. But paying for a shitty product - most definitely is.

Membership can be $30, or $60, or more. But the quality has to be there.

Jack, I agree totally to your comment. I am always pleased to read your comments (and of course all the other members of photo net) I keep on struggling with the rather Neanderthalic way Photo.net is constructed. i am 70 years of age so I understand my possibilities to embrace new developments are diminishing. So take my comment as possible due to my shrinking intelligence. After working in a hospital in software development I still feel this software as being sloppy. Lots of knobs and things to push and to play with. I still cannot find a proper way to answer any comment in a decent and sensitive way. May be Photo net want us to sent a personal email to the member in question? Sure I will, I am a grateful human being and want to express my appreciation to those who take the time to write any comment. Or those who like my images.

And why???? did you left the good working system of the older days? Never ever looked at the other websites (how do my neighbors arrange such simple things) Take a look at Flicker for instance.

You know dear Photo net, a website like yours has to be based on communication. Sure you offer lots of communication on lots of topics, great! But basically I want to communicate on a rather simple, constructive and rather easy way.

And yes if I am getting a low brained, I will consider ending my membership.

Kind regards,

Herman Roes

Glad to see this is not only me. Form over function, and changes for the sake of changes.

And - "give us your card number" above all.

It stinks.

The question is: why did things go downhill here ?

I see continuous deterioration of the site for many years now.

What is it then: sabotage ? Oh...I forgot...Russians meddling with everything these days...

(Edit):

And let me tell you this:

Cancelling the subscription as the only method to Update Payment Method is DUMB beyond belief (after one manages to press the button which flashes for a fraction of a second before disappearing - even this is a lousy web programming).

Why can't I pay via PayPal ?

Why do I have to pay only with auto-renew option ?

Why the BS about having the control of my account - when the only control is of my credit card by PhotoNet ?

I guess the going was good when it was good. But all good things come to an end.

...which would be a sorry thing to do after more than 10 years of being a member (OK, not very active for the last couple of years).

So what happened ?

I received a mail with notification that my subscription expires. Fine, no problem. I go to My Account - and a surprise: it is set to auto-renew, although I haven't provided the details of my card. Now - how to change the payment method ?

Clicking on My Account results in some options flashing for 0.5 of a second - meaning that I can't change anything. All it does is asking for my credit card.

AND THAT PISSES ME OFF !

So - I would greatly appreciate some access to my account where I can actually change or update things.

The ridiculous thing is that EVERY website keeps changing, declaring that this is in order to give the user more control and make things easier - with exactly the opposite effects.

It is a pity that PhotoNet follows the same lemming rush to screw up things which worked well.

So - how do I actually change anything in my account ?!

<p>Camera: Canon 1D Mark II,<br>

Flashes: 2x 580 EX II + 1x 550 EX.<br>

As expected - 550 EX can only be fired in Manual mode, not ETTL, and adjustment of power is on the flash.<br>

Essentially - the Yongnuo gizmos work as wireless trigger.</p>

<p>Both 580EX II work fine in Manual mode, adjustments of power in groups A and B works fine.</p>

<p>However - ETTL mode seems to be completely out...huge overexposure, by more than 3 stops. Looks like the flashes are firing at full power. </p>

<p>Question: would that be the fault of the camera - which seems to be unable to communicate ETTL settings to the transmitter ? Does anyone have experience with the above Youngnuo devices on 1D Mk II ?<br>

The transmitter has the latest firmware upgrade, BTW.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>OK, it has been a loooooong time since I visited this place.<br>

But I am back - and with a question.<br>

I have Canon 1DII, plus Speedlites: 2x 580EX II, and 1x 550EX.<br />So far I have used them with ST-E2 transmitter, which works OK for most of the time, but...<br>

To cut to the chase: PocketWizard.sa are currently out of my price range, so I looked at YongNuo YN-622C ETTL transceivers, and YN-622C-TX flash controller.<br>

As I understand, there have been some compatibility issues with 1D cameras (now supposedly resolved).<br>

BTW - Canon 1DII does not have menu for control of the flashes.</p>

<p>Question 1: If I put YN-622C ETTL transceiver on the camera, and any of my Speedlites on top - will I be able to use this flash as a master (with all control through Speedlite menu) ? Considering my camera and Speedlite(s) - will my ability to remotely control flashes be severely compromised ?</p>

<p>Question 2: If the answer to the above is "NO" - then I guess I will have to use the YN-622C-TX flash controller on the camera - losing the on-camera flash ? Considering my camera and Speedlite(s) - will my ability to remotely control flashes be severely compromised ?</p>

<p>Question 3: This link: http://flashhavoc.com/yn622c_review/ specifies limitations for flashes and cameras, but also gives a link to http://flashhavoc.com/yongnuo-yn-622c-tx-now-available/ saying that most of the limitations are now removed. Can anyone shed some light on what works and what not ?</p>

<p>In short - having radio-trigger on ETTL and (possibly ?) some control over manual mode would be nice. Is it doable with these (very reasonably priced) gizmos ? ($79 for a pair of transceivers plus $46 for the flash controller). Idid read the manuals for both - but writing manuals and/or technical descriptions doesn't seem to be the strong suit of YongNuo...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ed - let's not exaggerate with 2,000,000 pages...</p>

<p>The search phrase is "1D user manual download".<br /> The FIFTH link from the top on the FIRST page is a link to 1Ds user manual page - and on the same page is also 1D MkII and 1D MkIII (and couple of others).</p>

<p>Now let's try the flash:<br /> Search phrase: "best flash for EOS 1D".<br /> The FIRST link on the FIRST page is a link to http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/ - which BTW is a must-read flash bible. It specifies all of the current Canon flash units - as it was updated by NK Guy (thanks !) on 19 February 2010.</p>

<p>Time total: 25 seconds, including download of the manual.</p>

<p>So - please cut the BS regarding searching through 2,000,000 replies. And no one is demeaning you by suspecting you of being lazy - the above example illustrates quite well than maybe you should work on a) your patience; b)possible laziness; and c) how to use Google.</p>

<p>After all - you had time and patience for dissecting the answers 10 different ways and writing lengthy rebukes.</p>

<p>And: "This forum thus is, and serves for me as the most logical, knowledgeable "Shortcut" to the empirical knowledge I seek for a newly purchased camera I know nothing about."</p>

<p>So - if this resource (PN) is so valuable and time saving - then why don't you join as a paying member ? This way at least you could justify wasting the (equally valuable) time of others.</p>

<p>Michelle - if some people appear harsh or mean, this does not necessarily make them so. In fact, this may be just the gut reaction to the unthinkable that happened - and should not have happened.<br>

My first reaction when reading your post was "Oh, no, don't tell me that - how was this possible ?!"<br>

And the reality is - you were not prepared. What do you expect people to say ? I am not a wedding photographer - but I can't imagine putting myself in a situation like this. You went to a shot w/o backup lens and w/o speedlight - what did you expect ?<br>

You said "I just need some help on how to have this never happen again, and how to deal with the couple about this situation?"<br>

It seems to me that you are just looking for compassion and sympathy (quite understandable, but maybe a slap on the backside would also be in order).<br>

How to deal with the couple - whatever it takes to make them less unhappy and somewhat forgiving, and enough on that has been said above.<br>

How to have this never happen again ? Simple, and had been explained about a million times by people way more experienced than me, here on this site and elsewhere: have a backup camera: have a backup lens (fast prime would not ruin your budget): have a speedlight (with backup), have spare batteries. And - CARRY THIS STUFF WITH YOU when shooting. Big camera bags have been invented some time ago - specifically for the purpose of CARRYING STUFF AROUND.<br>

And - mastering the dark art of turning the manual focus ring may come handy.<br>

Good luck - and hope that you learnt from the experience.</p>

<p>Quite clearly there are two opposing interests at work here: the customers who want to get the most for their money, and the photographers who want to maximize their profits.<br />And no - not all customers are idi%ots who do not know bad image from a good one, and not all the photographers are greedy or insufficiently qualified (to put it mildly). In most cases the opposite is true.</p>

<p>Let me tell you why I got one guy and not the other - maybe there is some value in reading this.<br />We visited two photogs, both quite established. The third one got the job.<br />The first two visits have been generally pretty similiar - although not all the points below are applicable to both. It should be noted that all three have been polite and courteous etc.</p>

<p>- "please have a look at some of the beautiful pictures we make" - <em>OK, we already did have a look at the websites, but it can't hurt to have another look ? Wrong: the album was worn to the point it should have been replaced, and its location (on a low coffee table, with the overhead lamps creating heaps of reflection from the images) made it very difficult to concentrate on the images. </em><br />-"here are the packages we are offering and the pricing" - <em>well, good to know that - but how do you know that I need any of this? I do not want to discuss what YOU have to sell, I want to tell you what I need. </em><br />-"we can be booked for a minimum of X hours and the minimum number of prints is Y, and we charge Z amount for transport if further than...from..., and we charge additionally if we are required to stay past XY hour" <em>- uh uh..no comment here - except that XY hour specified was rather early.</em><br />-"we do not provide high resolution files on DVD, because...blah blah blah..." - <em>well, that's no good, because what I primarily want is a DVD with files </em>"sorry, we do not do that, but if you reeally want it we would have to charge you" -<em> insert here some 4-digit number.</em><br />-"why so much for the prints ?" - "oh, we use professional equipment, and then editing of the images is difficult and time consuming, and...and..." - <em>well, I have some idea regarding both, and I still think this is a bit over the top.</em></p>

<p>Half an hour wasted in both cases (not including getting there and back).</p>

<p>The third one - who landed the job (he was recommended by one of my daughter's friends, who attended one of "his" weddings):<br />- "have you looked at my website ?" - <em>yes</em> - "good, you know then what I do and how I do it. If you want to have a look at a typical wedding album - couple of examples are on the table" -<em> so, we did have a look, and at this point we decided that if all else is OK - then we will get one of these - they just looked soooo nice...</em><br />-"where is the venue and what can I do for you ? You have seen some examples of what people typically take - but feel free to put together your own package" - <em>sounds good - and the package examples on the website have been EXAMPLES - not firmly priced packages (in fact, no prices were quoted there).</em><br />-"do I provide DVD with hi-res files? - Sure, JPEGs straight out of the camera, if you want editing on some of them - let me know - there would be additional cost involved" - <em>well, getting closer and closer :)</em><br />-"the prints ? Sure, whatever you want, they are basically at a cost" - <em>sounds too good to be true... but let's wait and see</em><br />-"what do I charge? - my pricing is between $XX and $YY. Depends on what you want" - <em>sounds good, although the lower price is quite a lot more than I would expect, and the higher is way above what I would be willing (and able) to pay. But - the guy is flexible, and does not make difficulties, so it sounds promising. </em><br />-"how long do I stay ? As long as required to get the job done - within reason. But weddings do not end in 3 or 4 hours" - <em>sounds good...kind of...</em><br />So - we decided what we are going to take (some prints, a nice album, DVDs) - now, what is the price ?</p>

<p>I must say that at this point I was already sold on a) quality of images b)nice presentation c) flexibility, so I was ready to pay whatever I had to. Which means that I haven't flinched (much) when hearing the price - higher than both previous ones. But - it was a done deal.</p>

<p>Now - how it worked in practice:<br />-the guy turned up at the house EARLY, with two big bags full of high quality (and well worn) Nikon gear<br />-took some photos and then drove of to the venue (about 1.5 hrs drive) and was waiting for us there. As it turned out - he had time to talk things over with the celebrant at the church, and also look around the village (it paid off later)<br />-he was dressed in dark pants and white shirt - not too different from most of the guests when the jackets were off<br />-he was totally unobtrusive - in fact I was wondering when and how he managed to take all these pics - but he did, and they were very good - straight from the camera<br />-he managed to discover some nice locations in the village and around (where he then took B&G) to shoot some VERY pretty pics<br />-he worked about 10 hours straight and disappeared when he was not needed any more (late at night, after informing us that he has what is required - and do we need his services any longer ? - no we did not, thank you).<br />-The album was beautiful, the DVDs full of very nice high quality JPEGs (some duds have been deleted, of course - and possibly some PS action applied - maybe ?) - and really, not much editing was required if any. We printed whatever we wanted (although the quality of his prints was better, no question about that).</p>

<p>Since then - we recommended this guy to a number of people, who ended up as happy as us with the work he did. All of us paid a pretty penny (but all of us got exactly what we wanted, to a very high standard) - and there was no ill feelings about the price. This guy knew what he was doing and did a good job w/o making big fuss about ownership of the images etc. etc.).<br />As far as I am concerned (and several of other people who used him since) - his business model works a charm.</p>

<p>And - this is not a fairy tale about an ideal wedding photographer who does not exist. This has happened, and I have a lot of images to prove it. I also have the bill...well, let bygones be bygones :) It was worth it.</p>

<p>"This forum is for wedding and event photographers ..."<br>

Wrong again, Lee...</p>

<p>This is a forum ABOUT Wedding and Social Event Photography, not FOR Wedding and Event photographers.<br>

Quite obviously the horse and the cart switched their places, so, to avoid possible misunderstanding - I will spell it out in short and simple words: wedding photographers exist to serve the customers, not the other way around. </p>

<p>I can see now why and how this thread originated (no ill feelings toward the OP, though).</p>

<p>Marc:<br>

"I do completely disagree with the "commodity" mentality that this is just a service. There is still a magic about photography ... which I will continue to call "art". "<br>

No argument here - and this should be reflected in the price of your service. But you do not expect me to pay for the "magic" (no sarcasm here) - if I do not get the files ?</p>

<p>John:<br>

"...but the bottom line is you are selling what you bring to the table. Otherwise anybody with a camera will do."<br>

and<br>

"You are hiring him for <em>his</em> work. "</p>

<p>No, not just anybody with a camera will do. Yes, you are selling your skills, expertise, time - but not DIRECTLY. In other words - I am not paying for your PRESENCE, your skills, expertise and time - I couldn't care less how much time you spend at the wedding - for all I care you could sit on the Moon with a BIG lens (like 25,000km focal length :) - and you may not know the camera from a hammer. This is YOUR business to know all about wedding photography and be able to do it.</p>

<p>I am paying for the PRODUCT of your skill, expertise, knowledge, artistic vision etc. (add whatever you want here). And I expect to get this product.</p>

<p>Similarly - I am not paying a plumber to come and sit at my building site, and pay him just because he is very good at what he does. I will gladly pay, however, for the product of his work (be it hot water system or the sewage). And - sure as hell I will refuse to pay ongoing royalties for the use of the abovementioned amenities - a have already paid for them.</p>

<p>I hope that you see my point.</p>

<p>"I am going to take a final shot at the guy who said we are being hired to document a day. I am not. Though my background is photojournalism that is not my approach to doing a wedding."</p>

<p>Well - I suspect that the boundary is more than just a little bit blurred here. The bottom line is - the customer pays and has a right to get something for his money - so maybe "your approach" is not that terribly important.</p>

<p>Having said that - I fully agree that you may follow your line of reasoning, select your customers based on their "compliance" and ability to pay, and be very successful. No one forces anyone to do anything - and if the customer agrees, you may do whatever you want. As far as I am concerned - a DVD with images is the minimum I would expect to get from the photographer.</p>

<p>If the customer signs a contract where the rules are spelled out (and doesn't like it afterwards) - they only have themselves to blame.</p>

<p>Strangely enough - when a photographer complains that they lose (OK, potential) customers because they are unwilling to part with a product of their PAID work - well, they only have themselves to blame too.</p>

<p >“It may be <em>your</em> wedding, but it's <em>my</em> vision, <em>my</em> work that captured it. That doesn't automatically entitle someone to the images.”</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Am I reading what I am reading ?!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If what you wrote is true – then what exactly am I entitled to, and what exactly am I paying for ? For you to be able to do you work and/or fulfill your vision ? Or am I paying for your presence at MY wedding? Why should I pay for that ? Why should I care about your work and what you do in your time ? Why, for that matter, should I even allow you to enter the premises ?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If it really is “your” work and “your” vision – then you should attend the wedding for free – heck, you should ask for permission and pay ME for the privilege of taking photos at MY wedding. In that case – yes, whatever you shoot with YOUR gear and YOUR vision – is your undisputable property to do with as you wish. You may even sell it to ME at any mutually agreed price.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But – if you charge me $200+ an hour BEFORE you even produce anything – then you work for me. I am paying for the PRODUCT, not for your PRESENCE. And if I am not entitled to the images – then what is your product and what exactly is this that you are selling ?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I think that Nadine (and the guy who took pics at my daughter’s wedding ) got it right, and I suspect that they are both successful because they sell SOMETHING.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I am not trying to convince you (after all, you are giving away the discs) or anyone else – the customers will vote with their wallets, which I suppose is good enough to convince anyone – and pretty damn quick at that. And – those who remain unconvinced, will be out of business.</p>

<p >Lisa – I am not a wedding photographer, but just couldn’t resist putting in my $0.02. Reading your post made me cringe.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >First of all – you are providing a service. In other words – you do what the market wants. Or…do you ?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >“…who wanted to do a portrait session right after her wedding because it was cheaper. I turned it down.” - and you still complain ?! </p>

<p > </p>

<p >So, all of a sudden people have no right to buy what they want and they have to buy what you want to sell, when you want it and according to your business model ? I think that you need a serious reality check if you want to stay in business. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Now – regarding the ownership of “your digital pictures” (I know that I may get flamed for this…).</p>

<p >The pictures you took have been paid for and there is no reason NOT to give A COPY of digital files to the customer – if this is what they want. If they are decent shots straight out of the camera – where is the problem ? If the customer wants you to spend time on editing/retouching etc. – of course, they should be charged for this. But it is no surprise to me that people turn you down after you tell them that you want to be paid for taking pictures a THEIR wedding in order to produce images that are YOURS, and then they have to pay you MORE in order to get something which has already been paid for.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I had my daughter’s wedding couple of years ago – and a number of wedding photographers had been turned down – precisely because of their views on who owns what and what I am allowed/permitted to do. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Fortunately – one of the better wedding photographers in Sydney has a business model which fits what I (and I suspect most customers) expect – and he is not cheap by any means. Basically – the customer tells him what is needed, and he comes up with a price (not cheap, but reasonable). In my case – he spent 12 hours shooting about 1,000 images, did portrait session, took the newlyweds to some nice locations around, provided DVDs with his unedited shots (very printable, may I add), also printed an album with wedding pictures (on request - and why not, the quality of the prints was really outstanding). Everyone was happy. His business is thriving, and you need to book him at least couple of months in advance. I will repeat this again – he is not cheap, but he sells what people want – and he does not think that the images he shot are “his” to the extent that the customer is refused a DVD.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The market drives the business model – not the other way around. </p>